PC SUM 2004 02 03Planning Commission Work session
Summary Minutes
February 3, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Claybaugh, Bruce Feik, Steve Lillehaug, Kurt Papke
and Bethany Tjomhom.
PUBLIC PRESENT: Kate Aanenson and Bob Generous
PUBLIC PRESENT: Janet Paulson, John Klinglehutz and Tom Heiland
The work session began at 7:00 p.m.
1. Discussion regarding Chapter 20 of the City Code; Zoning Ordinance
Article XXIII. General Supplemental Regulations.
The Planning Commission discussion regarding camping centered on the idea that the
draft ordinance was too broad. The commission questioned whether camping would be
permitted in Carver County's Lake Minnewashta Regional Park, whether the draft
ordinance would apply to someone setting up a temporary screened enclosure in their
yard during the summer, whether the ordinance would prohibit the boy scouts and girl
scouts from camping out, whether other surrounding communities regulate camping.
The Planning Commission felt that the term "city drainage and utility" easement should
be used to clarify which easements we prohibit structures. They also questioned whether
the draft language would permit a principal structure in the drainage and utility easement.
There was a question of how "continued" was defined in relation to the storage of boats,
snowmobile, etc.
The Planning Commission felt that the POD and roll-off language was reasonable.
The Planning Commission questioned the wording regarding wall mounted light fixtures
and the 90 degree cutoff angle. They also questioned whether these prohibition would
affect residents who install spot lights on their property. Would the prohibition of
directed lighting skyward apply to residents who light up their trees? They felt that the
ordinance was to broad.
The Planning Commission was opposed to the language regarding privately owned
utilities, especially the part that stated that the city would not be responsible for the repair
or replacement of any such amenity unless responsibility is agreed to by the city.
The Planning Commission was opposed to the requirement that underground (invisible)
fencing require a zoning permit or zoning compliance review.
The Planning Commission questioned whether the distance between staged retaining
walls made a difference whether they should be considered one wall as far as height
purposes. They also wanted to clarify that temporary fences would need to meet the
other locational prohibitions.
The Planning Commission directed staff to investigate the issues surrounding the use
EFIS, including proximity to grade, installation, drainage of the system, current
technologies, etc.
Article XXIV. Off-street Parking and Loading
The Planning Commission concurred with the requirement that drive aisles for 45 degree
parking be increased. They also felt that the increase in curb width for 90 degree parking
from 8.5 feet to 9.0 feet was reasonable.
The Planning Commission accepted the idea of making parking requirements for
multifamily developments dependent upon the number of bedrooms in a unit as well as
providing relief for senior housing developments. However, they suggested that the
standards be incorporated in a table.
The Planning Commission agreed with the change in office parking standards, including
the use of net office area, rather than gross building area in determining the parking
requirements. It was pointed out that the divisions based on building square footages be
inclusive, i.e., less than 50,000 sq. ft., between 50,000 and 100,000 sq. ft., and 100,000
sq. ft. and larger.
Article XXV
The Planning Commission recommended that the ordinance use the term "width" rather
than "dimension" is specifying the minimum size of a landscape island or peninsula.
2. Review Comments from Articles II, V, VI and VII.
The Planning Commission thanked staff for the additional information and explanation.
3. Review Walnut Grove 2nd Addition Design Alternatives.
The applicant, John Klinglehutz, and Tom Heiland presented a detached housing concept
including three new homes to the Planning Commission on the site. The developer
would bring this option back to the Planning Commission for formal review, if the
Planning Commission felt that this would be a better development option.
Staff provided a copy of the plat for Walnut Grove development for comparison
purposes. The proposed housing would be very similar to the bungalow style home
within the development, but larger in living area. The development would require
variances for lot width and side yard setbacks, but not lot area of lot depth.
2
The Planning Commission stated that the proposal would probably be a better plan for the
area.
Kate Aanenson went over the agenda for the next Planning Commission meeting on
February 17, 2004.
The work session ended at 8:40 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Bob Generous